Erin, Rick, Rog and all,
The "marketplace of ideas"? I know, its just an analogy. Its not worth
getting all bent out of shape over an analogy, but I'd like to object
anyway. Not so much because the phrase is objectionable, but because it gets
at how we think about ideas. Its a way to discuss the 3rd & 4th levels.
ERIN
> I have been thinking about the description of the intellectual level being
> "marketplace of ideas" . I like it. I think it brings in the importance of
> the interaction on this level and not just dormant ideas.
RICK
Right. Interaction leads to competition, competition leads to evolution.
Look for more on this theme in my forthcoming essay "Intellectual Antitrust
and the Metaphysical Basis of Human Rights" (target date June 2002).
ROG
I like it too. It is odd that we characterize the intellect in such 3rd
level ways, but I think it points to the social level roots of intellect. I
can't wait to read your essay.
DMB
I like the interactivity and evolutionary characteristics suggested by the
economic analogy. They both seem like essential attributes of the
intellectual level. But the oddness that Roger points out, to "characterized
the intellect in such 3rd level ways", is the main problem with the
"marketplace" analogy. Its a third level creature trying to devour fourth
level values.
ROG
Some members of this forum seem to focus on the intellectual level's quality
of building a master plan. I concentrate more on its greatest asset being
as
a marketplace of ideas. Intellectual progress depends more upon building and
sustaining the marketplace of ideas than upon any particular idea.
DMB
Some members don't think "building a master plan" is a quality of the
intellectual level and some smell a slightly paranoid anti-intellectual
attitude in the accusation. I'd also disagree with the second statement if
it means the bookstore is more important than the books. But if Roger means
that we need an intellectual enviroment where ideas can thrive or fizzle
based on their merit alone, then I agree entirely.
ROG:
PS -- I would say that interaction can also lead to cooperation. As we
progress up the levels, competition gains in its ability to be cooperative.
For example, companies learn from their competitors, and scientists
definitely gain more from other scientists and theories than they lose. I
once thought about coining a new word "coopetition" to portray how
competition and cooperation can be more inter-related than people think, but
then I found someone else already appropriated the word.
The rest is DMB
Hmmm. I think competiton is a feature of the lower levels, all the blue
ribbons and tropheys, all the promotions and kudos are social level values.
That stuff is as old as civilization, or maybe even older. Intellectual
level interactions operate with a whole different set of rules. These rules
are not at all concerned with which scientists will "win". The rules are
aimed at at different goals, at producing scientific truth, academic
integrity, and adding to the sum of human understanding. Attaining any of
these goals requires the kind of intellectual honesty that can put
self-interest aside. Sure, there are ambitious scientists who covet the
Noble Prize, but that's a corrupting impulse, and contradicts intellectual
values. So "competition" in the normal sense of the word is a form of
interaction that doesn't suit the intellectual level very well. It always
wants the truth to win. That's why the "marketplace" description of the 4th
level is odd.
I'd go even further. Competition on the biological level is a ruthless and
bloody affair. And too often the kind of social darwinism that enshrines
competition as a corner stone of capitalism points to biological evolution
as their model and thereby endorse an inappropriate level of ruthlessness.
Ha! The "marketplace" analogy isn't even quite right for the actual
marketplace.
The marketplace wants to turn everything into a commodity. I guess that's
only natural. But when it tries to commodify higher level values, that's a
MOQ crime. There's an agressive quality to capitalism that wants to re-make
everything in the world in its own image. Its a value system that says that
"if it doesn't make a buck, if it doesn't serve my interests, then it isn't
worth doing." But a genuine scientists isn't in it for the money or the blue
ribbons. She thinks with a completely different set of values, a different
sort of morality and she KNOWS exactly why its worth doing.
The final thought about the "marketplace of ideas" is about the state of the
enviroment, the quality of the world of ideas. I suppose the situation is
similar in most western European nations, but I can only speak about the
intellectual climate in my own culture. In our marketplace there are lots of
cheaters. In recent years academia has been used a pawn in the culture war,
bogus think tanks, book publishers and news organizations have been used to
serve the political interests and scientists have been paid to obscure or
deny scientific findings that are at odds with corporate interests. Add the
Freudians of Madison Ave, McCarthyism, the Cold War, the increasingly
superficial mainstream media and all the members of David Brock's right-wing
scandal machine - add all that together and you see a pretty dismal state of
affairs. Ideas and thinkers suffer in this climate, or at least certain
kinds of ideas and thinkers - unmarketable ones.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:05 BST